I agree that Jason's suggested rewording is clearer.
Cheers,
Geoff
Jason wrote on 03/19/2006 05:43:51 PM:
>
> > Servers and clients must understand that the method for
> > identifying resources is still the URL. While generic clients
> > will be able to display DAV:displayname to end users, both sides
> > of the protocol must understand that if users are allowed to
> > perform operations such as rename, move, copy etc, generic clients
> > must display the URLs (or the path segments used in the displayed
> > collection) to allow these operations.
>
> I don't know what last sentence means. Clients do not need to
> display the URL or segments for the client to do those operations.
> 'at least not in GUI based clients. Because I can't tell what is
> meant by "generic client" above, I can't tell if the sentence is
> incorrect. Nevertheless, as stated, I'm uncomfortable with the
> "must" in there. And in general, I'm also not comfortable with us
> providing "must" statements regarding UI design. UI is not the
> business of this spec.
>
>
> > Changes to DAV:displayname
> > do not issue moves or copies to the server, but simply change a
> > piece of meta-data on the individual resource.
>
> I'd suggest changing this second paragraph to something
> that largely removes that sentence:
>
> While generic clients
> will be able to display DAV:displayname to end users,
> client UI designers must understand that the method for
> identifying resources is still the URL. Changes to DAV:displayname
> do not issue moves or copies to the server, but simply change a
> piece of meta-data on the individual resource.
>
> We can then also perhaps make a statement about two resources
> in the same collection having the same DAV:displayname.
>
> J.